I agree the mystery of “Is Candyman real and killing people or is this character just going crazy and killing people?” is the best way to portray a Candyman story.
Agreed but it would be hard to do twice. The first movie already let us know that he is real and the fear and belief is what keeps him alive. I think it would be kinda cheap to use that plot device in the new movie.
This film showed or tried to convey that a great number of people more so the Black people already knew he was real. So there was no need for this movie to debate that question any longer.
The myth was confirmed in the first movie. The story of the protagonist was tragic. The actor had a lot of charisma. Candyman was a individual, with an individual story.
I feel like the gentrification that they keep talking about in the movie also refers to how Candyman’s story had been forgotten and replaced with Helen’s
Yup it was funny knowing the story and watching how they skipped over the Candyman aspect… or it was the people that lived there just not telling the story
We got it sorry if people dont like it lol I understood the connection they forgot about him so he used another face another story and it just fell flat outside of the first kill in the gallery the movie was boring as hell
Usually when a review starts off immediately by talking about how beautiful the cinematography was, it's an indicator that that's the best thing about the movie. I've seen plenty of movie reviews where they start off by talking about how pretty it looks, and then they talk about all the negatives.
That's cause it is a gorgeous film to look at but upon discussions that DeCosta's script was heavily re-written by Peele and Rosenfeld really shows that many of the problematic elements of the film's story elements in plot and character come from them. There are bits of DeCosta's original story there but it is mostly muted and excised for Peele/Rosenfeld's rewritten script version that was made.
@Rich Perez i mean it has a 6.6 on imdb and a 61% from audiences on rotten tomatoes. I know you’re gonna say the sites don’t matter but my point is there has been some type of hate for it at some point
@@pennywisethedancingclown7139 never seen it but i myself can confirm there are some movies that both audiences AND critics dislike that I myself like lol and trust me i look at the background why they’re usually panned
@Rich Perez How? A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most praised horror movies, and one of the most well-known movies in general. I rarely ever see or hear anything about Candyman. I know it has a dedicated fanbase, but it isn't often mentioned among titans of the genre. And it has lower scores on critic aggregator / review sites than it deserves (in my opinion). So yes, I do think it's underrated when speaking comparatively.
The original “Candyman” will always be something nostalgic for me; because I grew up not far from Cabrini Green. Also as Jeremy stated Tony Todd’s performance added layers to candyman.
Jeremy is right on target when comparing the original's subtlety with the new film's more literal approach. As a standalone, the new film is a good popcorn movie and was entertained throughout. Going back to the original, that movie was a masterpiece. It's aged a bit and some outdated pacing but overall Jeremy is definitely on point about everything: Candyman's voice, his charisma, his presence or lack thereof to creep you out, the subtle hints, the lack of hand-holding and leaving certain scenes to the imagination...my gosh I can go on and on. The new film lacks ALL of this: not an ounce of subtlety anywhere, the visuals although nice to look at they instead serve as just an exposition technique, even the amount of people talking over each other versus the original's more silent killer flick approach is evident. Hollywood today has too many alphas i think, especially on projects like these that aren't really mainstream. It's a chance for up and comers to show us their skills but what suffers is what the audience may feel while watching it. Almost like all of their ideas are plastered into scenes, none get omitted, and we're left with a throwaway film once again. Original Candyman was an darker more poetic, introverted approach to horror thriller, whereas this new film was recycled garbage wanting to make a quick buck, which I'm sure they succeeded now it'll get tossed away to work on other classic names to bank on. So disgraceful.
I disagree. The old film didn’t just magically become iconic. It’s an average movie now and it was an average movie at the time. Candyman has ALWAYS been a horror movie revolving around black social injustice. People want the original movie to be great so badly that they mistake poor messaging as “subtly.” There has always been a debate about how the original movie conveyed the social message and in my opinion it was poorly done. This candyman movie fits the time, and the topics in which it’s hitting on are tired of “subtly.” Topics like these NEED to be shoved down your throat.
@@FaffyWaffel People are just whining cause they don't want black issues "shoved" on their face. Plus with everything that's going on why should the film be subtle? So they could pretend none of this shit is happening?
I've just finished watching the movie and I think it's fully aware of how people would take its blunt theming. I think the scenes with the art critic at the art gallery and the girlfriend's critique were lampshading this: that this movie isn't going to be vague about it; that it's going to be very blunt, and that people will either feel it's so blunt that it's uncomfortable (girlfriend critique) or that it's so direct that it comes of as tactless and a cheap appeal to something meaningful (professional art critic's critique), but unless it's something that's happening to you personally, it's not going to strongly affect you (pro art critic's second critique).
@@LuffyBlack "Plus with everything that's going on why should the film be subtle? So they could pretend none of this shit is happening?" Nope, it should be subtle because we aren't children, we can take time to think and create our own opinions. That's how art works, it leaves enough space for each person to generate their own interpretation. Also other reason could be that not only Americans in 2020 will watch this movie. Yeah racism will always exist everywhere, but you are implying that this movie shouldn't be subtle because of recent specific events wtf?? We could also make the connection if the movie was subtle mate.
Modern writers cannot do subtle social commentary, it's more like being hit in the face with a shovel. Also characters keep telling each other how great they are but their greatness is never shown. It's why there are few absolute classic movies these days.
You nailed it. There were parts that were so blunt that they took me out of the film. The cop at the end in the SUV came across like a cartoon character. The tone of his voice and even what he was saying...just way too much.
Jordan Peele is like that. I am not surprised at all with the reviews. I knew as soon as I heard he was directing Candyman. He showed everything with Let me Out and Us.
@@AlecDraven Uh-oh. Aw, jeez dude/lady. Sure hope Jeremy's ok after this review. If he really said "it" more than 5 times, yeah, he's f**ked. Unless he can do what the original protagonist in the first C-Man(sounds dumb to just abbreviate it to C-Man, but it's better than actually saying his name), movie did. And no, I will NOT say his name in this comment, because I don't want to f**k anybody over like that. Let's hope Jeremy is alright after this, and most likely finds out the secret behind why we're not supposed to be saying the dude's name 5 times. Like the lady in the first one did.
Get out: Very subtle racial under tones, very well done delivering the overall message Us: Less subtle massaging but still manages to be a well done horror movie Candyman: Just a brick full of racial overtones thrown at the audience bearly disguised as a horror movie.
@Jose V. it definitely did. An "OTHER" forgotten trying to integrate into society. plus Peele has explained that a central theme of the film is American privilege.
@Cedric Crawford why did the mere sight of a gay couple bother you lmao. gay people exist, gay couples exist. their existence isn’t automatically political, they’re just people and you’re just a homophobe.
The original Candyman was about the same thing so I don't get why people are triggered by this film following the original themes. I'm just glad it stopped with the White Girl fetish and focused on the trauma or Candy-man.
Honestly, the scenes in which we have Anthony exposing his art are a perfect metaphore of the whole messaging of the movie. It doesn't let you just look at the piece, and think about what it evokes in you and reminds you of. It has to have the artist right next to your ear explaining exactly what he intended to do, and everything he was thinking about.
@@jahedm3 It’s far from the worst. This is actually pretty great imo. I mean, compare this film to Friday the 13th part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan or Troll 2, or Thankskilling. If you think this is one of the worst films ever, I can’t imagine how hard you are to please with other films.
@@ryanbollinger1759 I agree not completely terrible, but a lot of missed opportunities and the social commentary had the subltey of a brick to the face.
@@gentelmanjunkie542 If you know anything about the history of Chicago urban development, and/or the long history of southern folklore in US black communities, the social commentary was thin. C'mon, not once did they even bring up the show 'Good Times', which had a setting inspired by Cabrini Green.
Social commentary can be done well if you "Show, don't tell." The problem is these people who try to infuse social commentary in their movies think the Audience isn't smart enough to pick up on the message so they'll just try to bash you over the head with the message to the detriment of the movie.
Absolutely agree with you this movie was just weird when it came to storytelling. Also the conversations, idk it felt like the skriptwriters had never seen a human interaction.
It's particularly funny cause his reviews have been slowly getting longer over the years but he still caps out around like 8min pretty consistently. He definitely does this for the passion of it all.
@@dadocta5168 Chris does reviews still but he does two in one video and only if it's something he really wants to talk about. Usually independent films.
You can’t replace Clive Barker with Jordan Peele as producer. Clive wrote this story (The Forbidden) and without him it’s not hard for me to imagine that it never reaches its true flavor
I wonder why people are raving about this film so much lmao. There's nothing more obnoxious in a film than an absolute lack of subtlety when it comes to delivering social commentary. The fact that it has such obvious social commentary is probably why all the pretentious critics are giving it such a good review. Nonetheless, thanks for sticking to your guns and being as open and honest with every review as always! This is why I always come to watch your reviews
" social commentary" that is all you need to get good reviews from main stream critics. Mostly social critic against white people or men, then you will get good reviews. Not all the time, but most And it is lead writtem by jordan peele and hollywood has a hard on for him
Personally, I enjoyed the bit of meta-commentary to it, working from the artist/critic angle. For those not paying attention, there's a bit where the character of McCoy is trying to present his latest work, and the critic he's talking with just immediately rips into it, basically ignoring any appreciation of the work or effort to make the piece to just say how it's nothing new, and how previous works have done the same thing and done it better. But then you get a later scene where because now McCoy's work is garnering more attention, the critic goes out of her way to act like she didn't fundamentally shit on his work, which ties nicely into a later sentiment that was part of why Candyman existed in the first place. The expression of people wanting the works others make, but treating the people who made those works like dirt. But maybe that's just me reading too much into it. Overall, I can see why people enjoyed the movie. It had a competent story, excellent visual direction, solid scoring, and was enjoyably paced, between the building dread of people taking the bait, and moments where the movie let itself breathe.
I honestly had the same exact thoughts after coming out of the theater, except I didn't like how it looked either. The original Candyman felt grimey, dirty, and just overall real. I'm not sure if it's because of the newer cameras, color grading, lighting, or what, but even when there was a scene somewhere that's supposed to be run down it still felt too clean. The movie has a very polished look and doesn't have the same, almost majestic tone as the original.
So true! I saw a making of documentary about the 1992 film and the director said that they added more trash to Cabrini! Can you believe that? The actual dirty, filthy run down projects at the time STILL didn’t have enough trash and needed more 😂😂. And in the original it’s that very trash that made me see the film as ‘beautiful.’ So much irony there.
I was too focused on everything else that I didn't even realize this about Candyman 2021. You're definitely right though, the original had so much going on in Cabrini Green that the building itself did all the talking.
I feel like he should've gotten more starring roles after that. He had such a great presence. I saw him in a few other things, but they were small roles.
Candyman is a vengeful spirit that castrated a boy and tried to burn a baby alive. To try to turn him into the vigilante of the very community he terrorized 30 years ago is just so stupid! Also a huge part that made the original Candyman movie so successful was the uniqueness of Daniel Robitaille. The OG Candyman was terrifying yet alluring, immensely cruel but capable of affection, decomposing and crawling with bees but with this elegant posture... Now he's a bunch of nameless men plus freaking Sherman and dull as dishwater Anthony... unbelievable now they manged to f this up.
You missed the message. Candyman is as much a horror tale for whites as it is for blacks. Candyman is a tale of the atrocities committed to the black community but Candyman is also a reflection of its own community. The gang violence the high crime rates, etc. Candyman is the worst of both, he plays both parts.
@@FaffyWaffel No he didnt. Thats what it was turned into with this garbage sequel and why many hated it including me. Candyman was an urban legend set in that backdrop. The only thing that had to do with race was why he was killed. It's not even horror anymore.
Candyman the book and more so the first film was a look at societal issues of poverty and gentrification etc.. this is just a. Ham fisted dumb identity politics view…
The Candyman that we were expecting - "I am, the writing on the wall. The sweet smell of blood. Be my victim." The Candyman that we got - "I hear you're looking for Candyman bitch. Well you found him."
Sad thing is I"m sure those that brought up the idea of making a new film wanted that, only to get drowned out by execs and up and comers thinking their Gen Z TikTok lingo will make a better film.
I agree 100%. It just fell flat in both the horror aspect and social commentary. There’s a really great spot in review on Polygon that sums it all up perfectly
And thats why it just doesn't work for the candyman character. He should stick to his own stuck like Get out or US. Those are great, but this movie just blew hard.
Hit the nail on the head. Despite the great acting and satisfying visuals the movie was too concerned with spoon feeding the audience its message. I found the original much more compelling, this one paled in comparison. When a message is delivered subtly and gradually it creates a much deeper comprehension and is actually more effective. I did like the little nods to horror tropes though, for instance when the main female character says "nope" to going down a dark staircase into an unknown underground location. Overall it was a fun watch but it didn't stay with me, contrary to the original.
I actually enjoyed this 2021 version. It's for sure a film that will stay with me, as I have been thinking on it since I left the theater. It's one of those movies where you just have to know certain things in order to get it.
Yeah Jordan Peele being involved in things is a big warning sign to me now. He did the exact thing with Twilight Zone drilling into your head its social commentary. He's not into subtly much.
At least he's not super obnoxious about it, like other directors try to be. He still makes it easier to watch by all audiences. Not necessarily annoyingly finger waggy.🤷🏽♀️
Wait you're mad that the Twilight Zone has obvious social commentary? Have you ever seen an episode of classic Twilight Zone? The episode about beauty being in the eye of the beholder is not subtle in the slightest about what the message is
@@Advent3546 Yeah lol that confused me about his post too.😅 Episodes of the Twilight Zone were very much social commentary, if not philosophical. I guess it's harder for people to recognize now b/c it's was commenting on current cultural mindsets of it's own time. So there's some cognative dissonance there.
@@wondermcthunder8835 i just find it funny he’s given the same score to a movie this year for the 20th time or so and what’s more ironic is I believe he was hyped for most of these last year (correct me if im wrong on that tho)
The ending was so heavy handed with the social commentary that I found what was meant to be a sad scene comical. Compare it to the brilliance of the night of the living dead ending. Both convey a simular message, but one does it well.
It made me really sad personally, especially the concept of the main character slowly starting to embody the wounds of the previous candy men and the art towards the end that depicted George Stinney (a child that was put to death through the electric chair) and other people of color dying in horrible ways. It wasn’t perfect but I don’t know how you could find it comical in any way.
@@skyandrews2613 easily because it was too heavy handed. Hum getting the wounds was also comical, no one said a thing about him looking like freddy Krueger by the end of the film. Pure comedy right there.
I feel like they tried to do too much with this movie. It had some great ideas, but then it wasted time on parts that shouldn't have survived the first edit when that time should've been devoted to the core story more. The girlfriend's dad, the high school girls, all that was needless. And changing Candyman's motivation made no sense also.
The 1992 Candyman is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. One of my favorite MOVIES of all time, period. I can't describe what I felt when I saw that movie for the first time. The atmosphere, the haunting and unsettling story, the beautiful score, the deeper social and political themes that resonated through it all. I was so excited for the 2021 reboot, and the disappointment I felt walking out of that theater was almost heartbreaking. There was SO much wasted potential, and I think that's what hurts the most.
Seems like 1 of those movies that the director REALLY wanted to make a movie on social issues but the studio gave her a psychological horror and she went "I'm going to wedge as much of the movie i want to make as possible while trying to fit this established IP around it"
Its possible the studio producers wanted that to. Not that this director is innocent of what you said, but ppl gotta remember its not always just the directors.
Please talk to Black men about the subtlety of police violence and prejudice. This movie wasn’t meant to make White people feel good about our reality, please get over yourself babe.
The original movie was in the 1990's. We're in 2021. Candyman has a history of how he became candyman. The story is ever evolving because history in some form recreates itself. It's a sadness that a films lack of subtleness of the various forms of horror and how people experience horror has caused so much anxiety within these comments. You missed the entire movie because of your own subconscious guilt, and that is a bummer.
You can’t recreate the gritty theme that the original Candyman had.. there’s very few horror films that can do that to begin with much less recreate it.
@@makasete30 I mean so far all we’ve gotten is good remakes when it comes to horror films.. in none of those were they able to capture that gritty theme I’m talking about.
Rumour has it that if you say “institutional racism” into a mirror five times, a Hollywood exec appears and gives you 20 million dollars to appropriate a well-loved movie franchise
The original Candyman was excellent! It left me afraid to say his name five times. And Tony Todd is great in everything he does. That voice is epic! He also was great in Star Trek, I wish he was in more episodes!
Forced social commentary in movies is the equivalent of approaching people in public trying to guilt them into signing some petition about saving the environment
I will never forget after watching the original film, going to the bathroom and looking in the mirror with no lights on and saying "Candy Man" and being terrified to say it 5 times... I miss being young and gullible/imaginative... I wonder If I had VHS with darkman and candy man on it, I seem to have them both on my mind when I try to think of the plots???
Identity politics and social issues take precedence over just telling a good story too often these days. There’s no finesse. I was anticipating almost every flaw you pointed out and now I don’t feel compelled to see this until it’s streaming for free.
The scariest thing about this film is the trailer. I was in a cinema about a month ago and the trailer played. It looked like a typical horror flick until the end of the trailer. Once the trailer had finished, it repeated a second time. Usually, I would have thought this was a typical cinema mistake, but because of all trailers, it was of a horror film based on the premise of repetition, I was scared shitless.
I went to theatres to watch Old by myself (first “horror” in theatres alone, luckily wasn’t too scary) but when the Malignant trailer played.. I was superrr scared. Candy man trailer was good too
And repetition or history repeating itself is exactly what this film in a way showed. It's a stain that can not be washed out as one of the character's noted in this most recent film.
I get what you're saying about mystery, but everyone already knows that Candyman is real from the first movie. If they tried to keep it mystery I feel it would have felt like Manufactured Tension.
Maybe, and I haven't seen the new one so I don't know if it plays the same beat of implicating the MC in the murders, but because of that in the original it allows tension to remain even when you rewatch the film. Because you know she's innocent and yet it does reasonably look like she did it.
Question about the ending (Obvious Spoiler Warning): When the wife is in the police SUV, and she says Candyman four times into the mirror, and the officer says it once, why does that trigger the killer? Two things: 1, I thought the same person had to say the name five times. How does the dude saying it once count? And 2, why does the Candyman not kill her? Is it just because of their relationship? I mean, does he still remember her and decide to just kill all the cops to protect her? Seems sketch to me. Looking for any thoughts. Thanks.
honestly, we all don’t know. i have so many questions as well!! they tweaked a lot in this movie and didn’t really follow the original movie. i didn’t really like this one.
I did not get that Breana was his wife. Could be wrong. But she called him her partner at one point, so maybe she was just his woman. Back seat of police car scene Breana was traumatized obviously, and just witnessed her love shot first and no questions asked. A script of lies was her only options and in a state of still shock and madness she asked the cop to let her look in the mirror. He did. She began calling C man...and in the original Candy you really only had to say his name 3 times. When she got to the 4th call she saw her man walking. How can a so called dead man walk. She knew the answer. Anthony, although possessed by the ghosts of the other murdered Black men aka C-Man's, avenged his death and thus killed all those involved in his death. He did not kill Breana because there was no real reason as she never really said it 5 times. And C-Man has the power or choice to let you live or torment you mentally. Anthony basically saved her, and showed up before she could say it the 5th time. C Man is very aware and conscious, so yes he knew her. It made much sense to me.
Not to mention if that's the case wouldn't the girls in the bathroom auto trigger candyman since there were 5 of them so they said it in total 20ish times lol
The original is skin crawling, and I still have trouble watching it til this day. Sucks that this sequel is kinda just ass, because I was excited to see it.
He was in a show that was cancelled called Utopia (the British version, not the recent Amazon redo) and played a very small part as a teacher in The Kid who would be King
@@richlester7451 I mean there was a steady flow of blood, albeit CGI blood. But I think it was almost all off screen. If they had done something like what they did with Let the right one in and annihilated the girls in the same fashion, excellent.
The bathroom scene was pretty traumatizing. People don't think about the effects this possibly could have had on the two girls who actually survived. I think they had a lot of fun with the bathroom scene.
I’ll watch it eventually, but you pretty much confirmed everything I feared about this movie. Social commentary is fine when the movie trusts the audience (As you said, the original Candyman), but these modern woke movies don’t even play things as an allegory. They hammer you, aggressively, over the head with their political message, and it comes off as angry and infantile. It does more damage to your cause when you sell it at the expense of good storytelling.
Tony Todd came back for the role. I think what Jeremy was meaning was that he didn't get to bring back that gravitas and mesmerism that the character had in the original.
Exactly! But they’ll probably still miss it since they aren’t living through the context of the original films commentary so it’ll go over their heads again and assume that’s what subtly is.
The real problem is the original is from a white male perspective where the savior is basically Helen. This new 2021 version appears to be from a Black perspective. The social commentary is easier to consume when momma or daddy is feeding you. But when the babysitter tries to feed you the same food you can act up because as a child you still believe you run and control the babysitter.
@@nadia4999 You're right, also the black voices in the original were silenced, as it had a lot of scenes cut, even as small as interracial kissing because it made white people uncomfortable. Tony Todd himself speaking of his displeasure with that it in interviews. While the new film with voices of color mentioning social issues makes white middle and upper middle class people uncomfortable and angry. Example, all the comments here alone complaining about the lack of subtlety from the new film unlike the originals "subtlety", aka the originals silencing of black creators voices.
@@TheBatCaveCult Great point. The request for a so called horror film to showcase subtlety is beyond my comprehension. There's so much complaining that it's hilarious.
not everything is social justice fiction is just fiction both people who think everything is social justice and social justice warriors both complain about fiction.
social commentary in movies is like people recording a concert with their own terrible smarphone: almost no one knows how to do it, no one asks for it, the result is gonna be terrible and way more people than necessary will do it anyway.
Social commentary has always been in great films. The ONLY difference is whether its woven in nicely or sticking out in a super obvious way. In this case it stuck out, and that is always the worse of any set of films
Jeremy Jahns gets the issue with how films handle socal commentary nice. Every great film has had something to say but they had not forgot to make the movie good first
I had a dream about Candyman (The original...Tony Todd) Years ago. He was in my hallway and we had a fight. (I kicked his arse) But all I could hear was his voice. Jeeze Louise!! All these years later and I still remember that dream.
@@jloh3256 How did I win? Good question. In the dream, he (Candyman) was walking towards my baby son's room. I just thought in my dream head. "I don't fucking think so" I ran at him and used his hook against him. All I could hear was "Be my victim" while I was kicking his arse. Absolutely true. No kidding. It's a dream I remember to this very day.
Wow I'm surprised not to many people dug this movie, but they loved Us and Get Out. It just doesn't make sense to me. They made this a sequel and a prequel all in one. The movie connects perfectly with the first, but has it's own personality. Like you could do a sequel that has nothing to do the first movie and they will hate it. Then you do a sequel that somewhat connects to the first and they still hate it. I think everyone's opinions suck at this point and everyone has a different opinion just for the sake of having one. Perfect gore, perfect subtlety, perfect happy/not so happy ending.
The wokeness is overstated. 8 minute lecture at the beginning and not much else. The movie feels incredibly short. As soon as it gets going, it’s already over. Jeremy is right, the killings are redundant. There is no mystery between if it’s him or if it’s really candyman. They should have played on this element a little more.
I really am disappointed with how few lines Tony Todd actually spoke in this film. I really wish that he spoke more throughout the film, even in the most irrelevant ways. For example, when Anthony sees Candyman in the elevator, at least let Candyman say something like “I have come for you. Be my victim”. One of the primary reasons I wanted to see the new Candyman movie was to hear Tony Todd’s voice again, and I know I am not the only one who wanted to see the movie for the same reason
You sure aren't. He's the ONLY reason I went to see the movie. I was looking foe him throughout the entire run time. Talk about disappointment when he only showed up in the last minute of the movie
Was way too heavy-handed with the messages. Only took like 30mins for me and my buddy to realize that only white people were being targeted, which really killed the suspense during the killing scenes. You immediately knew who was gonna live and who was gonna die just by looking at them lol. Was borderline comedic. Should have been called “white people bad” with how uninspired their approach to the messaging of the movie was. This was someone getting angst out more than it was a meaningful message and story. I’m starting to think the people trying to “fight racism” today are actually the biggest racists.
Well i was thinking that too but if you remember, the kid in the opening scene discovered his sisters dead in the bathroom. Killed by candyman, so they are still keeping the fact he goes after anyone.
It’s ironic how they’re goal to fight bigotry will invariably end up creating the most bigotry and antagonism. Why are there so many brain dead on this planet? I’ll never know.
I watched the 1992 Candyman last weekend and it totally still holds up. I love that movie. My bf had never seen it and what he really loved is that it was brutal and gruesome and terrifying without it showing you everything. It doesn't just give it to you, the movie lets you figure some stuff out on your own a little. I'm going to see the new one tomorrow night and after watching this review I'm excited to see if I share the same view as Mr. Jahns. To be fair though, I do plan on being drunk.
Thanks for pointing out the heavy-handed social commentary. I really wanted to like this film but compared to they original there was no nuance and I left the cinema thinking, "So...cops are evil, I guess. That hasn't been done before. Yay."
Spoilers and my general thoughts . The original was a better film , yet still flawed the 1992 version felt as if Tony Todd's candyman had a better motivation to make an example out of Helens life's because she never believed in him , in the 1992 version it isn't addressed in the film but the reason why candyman becomes attached to Helen is because she resembles what his girlfriend looked like back in the day , this 2021 adaptation couldn't of opened any better with the first 10 minutes hidden subtext opposition with a character and the ambient reverse tracking shot going through the city it gives you the impression that the film will be great .. this film forgot that not only is candyman paranormal he's also psychological this whole thing with the new candyman sherman missed the mark completely , keep the opening exactly the same but when laundromat man tells the story of cabrini green as a kid he was petrified of the candyman and all the violence that plauged his area turns out that sherman had a mental condition from the perspective of laundromat kid he thinks its the real candyman at the same time we see the cops running to the kids screams we see shermans guardians/parents also trying to look for him , but it's too late shermon is shot in cold blood , and ever since then laundromat guy feels guilt and responsible for shermans death , we don't know whether or not the police was looking for Anthony since he was their during all the murders the police just randomly show up at the end , didn't know how to feel when the film perpetuated that their are multiple candyman when in my eyes their is only one candyman and that's the 1992 excellent performance from Tony Todd I wasn't happy to see that he was utilised in the film better , the laundromat guys motives were so out of blue when come to the last 15- 20 minutes of the film it didn't feel fleshed out especially with what he decides to do with Anthony it's too heavy handed with its social commentary that it doesn't have enough thought behind its message to pay off , the cops were only corrupt to serve purpose to the plot , yeah they can be corrupt , I'm not beyond the fact that some people are assholes but for me to be on board with that the audience needs to spend time with these characters to learn the error of their ways , im hearing that their is a possible 40 minutes that was cut from the film , who knows maybe additional makes the entire story feel more cohesive
I agree with a lot of what your saying, it definitely wasn’t subtle and the ending really did sort of rush to the end, but honestly I REALLY enjoyed this movie. His descent into the role of Candyman, the slow corruption of his reputation and body. I don’t know for me it really was a lot of creepy fun, but I agree with you about it being blunt with its message and the pacing.
@@jonstakenover Me too. Of course there will be shortcomings, because people judge and we want everything to dazzle us. But the film in my eyes did what it was suppose to do in telling a story of how something came to be, and the effects and consequences that people experience.
Candyman 2 handled the themes and ideas as well as the Candyman himself MUCH BETTER than the new film did. That is an underrated sequel to a classic. Plus Candyman 2 was actually good due to Clive Barker's involvement, which is sadly lacking in the third film and this one. He made the original and 2 both work. Also, the music by Phillip Glass was just as good as the first. The location being moved to New Orleans made for some great set-pieces and it further explored the anti-racism messages of the first film. Plus, it further replicated the atmosphere of the original short by Clive Barker. Also, the acting was pretty damn good too, from Tony Todd to others including Kelly Rowan, Bill Nunn, and Veronica Cartwright. The first is still great and the third film sucks too, like the new one.
@@garyjohnston4361 - For being artsy people, leftists sure do suck at making social commentary in art. Well, they suck at a lot of things. Basic economics, etc...
I said “Candymayne” in the mirror 5 times, and Terrence Howard appeared.
lol
I said "family" in the mirror five times and Vin diesel appeared
@@greyghost2492 😭😭😭
Wat mane? 🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
I agree the mystery of “Is Candyman real and killing people or is this character just going crazy and killing people?” is the best way to portray a Candyman story.
The kind of movie that made you think. Ironically the movie they re-made it into is a movie that does the thinking for you.
Agreed but it would be hard to do twice. The first movie already let us know that he is real and the fear and belief is what keeps him alive. I think it would be kinda cheap to use that plot device in the new movie.
Yeah but you can only do that once… and we already know that it’s not insanity because of the 1992 film.
This film showed or tried to convey that a great number of people more so the Black people already knew he was real. So there was no need for this movie to debate that question any longer.
The myth was confirmed in the first movie.
The story of the protagonist was tragic.
The actor had a lot of charisma.
Candyman was a individual, with an individual story.
I feel like the gentrification that they keep talking about in the movie also refers to how Candyman’s story had been forgotten and replaced with Helen’s
Thank you! Someone who actually listened.
Yup it was funny knowing the story and watching how they skipped over the Candyman aspect… or it was the people that lived there just not telling the story
Couldn't that have been because of their vow to never speak his name again?
Now y'all got me wanting to watch it again lol
We got it sorry if people dont like it lol I understood the connection they forgot about him so he used another face another story and it just fell flat outside of the first kill in the gallery the movie was boring as hell
@@CynicallyObnoxious No need to apologize, everyone is free to like what they like and vice versa.
Tbh, this is the first time I realized this movie was a sequel and not a remake
Those words have become borderline synonymous in recent years. “Reboot” is another one that just means whatever those other two mean.
@@thotslayer9914 Multiple sequels can exist…
Imdb says its a remake yet other places say its a sequel lmao
Tbh, no one cares what you didn’t know!
@@Distnightly seen it last night, it’s a sequel
I like the way Jeremy explains his take on a movie. Using examples, parallels, visuals.
Still one of the best UA-cam movie reviewers.
@F**СК МЕ - СНЕCK MY РR0FILЕ Get out of here, will ya?
THE Best i'd say
I always give him a like before watching the review. That's how consistent he is.
Even Dark Jeremy in early years was good at explaining things properly.
@@DanielFernandez-eo2ry Your right about that.
Usually when a review starts off immediately by talking about how beautiful the cinematography was, it's an indicator that that's the best thing about the movie. I've seen plenty of movie reviews where they start off by talking about how pretty it looks, and then they talk about all the negatives.
Is super impressive how amazing the photography is in the movie
THE GREEN KNIGHT
That's cause it is a gorgeous film to look at but upon discussions that DeCosta's script was heavily re-written by Peele and Rosenfeld really shows that many of the problematic elements of the film's story elements in plot and character come from them. There are bits of DeCosta's original story there but it is mostly muted and excised for Peele/Rosenfeld's rewritten script version that was made.
@@mahfuzislam2286 great fucking movie
I mean it is a gorgeous movie but a boring movie
"It's not even a party, I'm just sad." I felt that.
I am still dying ten minutes after hearing it 😂😂😂
Same buddy. Same..
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Man I hope Halloween Kills isn't a letdown.
This was more like watching Joy Reid give her commentary on MSNBC. Maybe Jeremy is starting to redeem himself after Once Upon a TIme...Review.
The original Candyman is one of the most underrated horror movies imo. Such a great film, with one of my favorite film scores of all time.
@Rich Perez facts homie!!!
@Rich Perez i mean it has a 6.6 on imdb and a 61% from audiences on rotten tomatoes. I know you’re gonna say the sites don’t matter but my point is there has been some type of hate for it at some point
@@Distnightly The movie "Blow" also got really low score on RT... It was a great movie.
@@pennywisethedancingclown7139 never seen it but i myself can confirm there are some movies that both audiences AND critics dislike that I myself like lol and trust me i look at the background why they’re usually panned
@Rich Perez How? A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most praised horror movies, and one of the most well-known movies in general. I rarely ever see or hear anything about Candyman. I know it has a dedicated fanbase, but it isn't often mentioned among titans of the genre. And it has lower scores on critic aggregator / review sites than it deserves (in my opinion). So yes, I do think it's underrated when speaking comparatively.
The ending came across like the first draft of a script, where the writer couldn't figure out the finale and so just threw together some random stuff.
Right! It left me with questions
I agree!! I know for a fact Brianna only said “Candyman” 4xs 🙃
@@BrittNyChickXoXo The cop said it once but I don’t know if thats how it works
@@CCbat33 lol I dont know if it works that way or not to.
YES!
The original “Candyman” will always be something nostalgic for me; because I grew up not far from Cabrini Green. Also as Jeremy stated Tony Todd’s performance added layers to candyman.
I knew people from Cabrini Green and that Candyman s**t wasn’t cool to say staring at the mirror lol
Dame I didn't know that was actually a real place !
Chi-Raq!!!
He crushed it.. This new movie is unrelated trash..
This review just made me wanna rewatch the original Candyman again. And that's not a bad thing at all.
Way better
And way better filming for a horror it has some amazing camera work
Did just that and ya he's on point in everything. Original is a masterpiece.
I have not seen the og one but loved this one,saw it last night,now wanna see that one :D
Jeremy is right on target when comparing the original's subtlety with the new film's more literal approach. As a standalone, the new film is a good popcorn movie and was entertained throughout. Going back to the original, that movie was a masterpiece. It's aged a bit and some outdated pacing but overall Jeremy is definitely on point about everything: Candyman's voice, his charisma, his presence or lack thereof to creep you out, the subtle hints, the lack of hand-holding and leaving certain scenes to the imagination...my gosh I can go on and on. The new film lacks ALL of this: not an ounce of subtlety anywhere, the visuals although nice to look at they instead serve as just an exposition technique, even the amount of people talking over each other versus the original's more silent killer flick approach is evident. Hollywood today has too many alphas i think, especially on projects like these that aren't really mainstream. It's a chance for up and comers to show us their skills but what suffers is what the audience may feel while watching it. Almost like all of their ideas are plastered into scenes, none get omitted, and we're left with a throwaway film once again. Original Candyman was an darker more poetic, introverted approach to horror thriller, whereas this new film was recycled garbage wanting to make a quick buck, which I'm sure they succeeded now it'll get tossed away to work on other classic names to bank on. So disgraceful.
- Couldn't agree with you more. What a waste of time. My wife wasn't even scared, and she is scared of everything.
I disagree. The old film didn’t just magically become iconic. It’s an average movie now and it was an average movie at the time. Candyman has ALWAYS been a horror movie revolving around black social injustice. People want the original movie to be great so badly that they mistake poor messaging as “subtly.” There has always been a debate about how the original movie conveyed the social message and in my opinion it was poorly done. This candyman movie fits the time, and the topics in which it’s hitting on are tired of “subtly.” Topics like these NEED to be shoved down your throat.
@@FaffyWaffel People are just whining cause they don't want black issues "shoved" on their face. Plus with everything that's going on why should the film be subtle? So they could pretend none of this shit is happening?
I've just finished watching the movie and I think it's fully aware of how people would take its blunt theming. I think the scenes with the art critic at the art gallery and the girlfriend's critique were lampshading this: that this movie isn't going to be vague about it; that it's going to be very blunt, and that people will either feel it's so blunt that it's uncomfortable (girlfriend critique) or that it's so direct that it comes of as tactless and a cheap appeal to something meaningful (professional art critic's critique), but unless it's something that's happening to you personally, it's not going to strongly affect you (pro art critic's second critique).
@@LuffyBlack "Plus with everything that's going on why should the film be subtle? So they could pretend none of this shit is happening?"
Nope, it should be subtle because we aren't children, we can take time to think and create our own opinions. That's how art works, it leaves enough space for each person to generate their own interpretation.
Also other reason could be that not only Americans in 2020 will watch this movie. Yeah racism will always exist everywhere, but you are implying that this movie shouldn't be subtle because of recent specific events wtf?? We could also make the connection if the movie was subtle mate.
Modern writers cannot do subtle social commentary, it's more like being hit in the face with a shovel. Also characters keep telling each other how great they are but their greatness is never shown. It's why there are few absolute classic movies these days.
I agree
You nailed it. There were parts that were so blunt that they took me out of the film. The cop at the end in the SUV came across like a cartoon character. The tone of his voice and even what he was saying...just way too much.
Jordan Peele is like that. I am not surprised at all with the reviews. I knew as soon as I heard he was directing Candyman. He showed everything with Let me Out and Us.
@@Valsteir he didn't direct this though. I think he produced it
@@NathanBaldassero he also rewrote the script
I like how he just keeps saying "the original candy man" instead of just saying "the original movie" he's just tempting candy man at this point 😂
I counted. I was like oh shit thats 5!
@@ryanoconnell6358 I counted at least 32 "Candymans." Jeremy is in so much trouble if what he said about a mirror being in his camera is true.
@@AlecDraven Uh-oh. Aw, jeez dude/lady. Sure hope Jeremy's ok after this review. If he really said "it" more than 5 times, yeah, he's f**ked. Unless he can do what the original protagonist in the first C-Man(sounds dumb to just abbreviate it to C-Man, but it's better than actually saying his name), movie did. And no, I will NOT say his name in this comment, because I don't want to f**k anybody over like that. Let's hope Jeremy is alright after this, and most likely finds out the secret behind why we're not supposed to be saying the dude's name 5 times. Like the lady in the first one did.
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
Get out: Very subtle racial under tones, very well done delivering the overall message
Us: Less subtle massaging but still manages to be a well done horror movie
Candyman: Just a brick full of racial overtones thrown at the audience bearly disguised as a horror movie.
@Jose V. it definitely did. An "OTHER" forgotten trying to integrate into society. plus Peele has explained that a central theme of the film is American privilege.
Not the same director but yeah, it wasn't subtle . It felt dumb
@@asgharabbas2193 Jordan Peele wrote it
@Cedric Crawford why did the mere sight of a gay couple bother you lmao. gay people exist, gay couples exist. their existence isn’t automatically political, they’re just people and you’re just a homophobe.
The original Candyman was about the same thing so I don't get why people are triggered by this film following the original themes. I'm just glad it stopped with the White Girl fetish and focused on the trauma or Candy-man.
Honestly, the scenes in which we have Anthony exposing his art are a perfect metaphore of the whole messaging of the movie.
It doesn't let you just look at the piece, and think about what it evokes in you and reminds you of. It has to have the artist right next to your ear explaining exactly what he intended to do, and everything he was thinking about.
Lol this movie was one of the worst movies ever, just terrible all around
You nailed it. They parodied themselves lol
@@jahedm3 It’s far from the worst. This is actually pretty great imo. I mean, compare this film to Friday the 13th part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan or Troll 2, or Thankskilling. If you think this is one of the worst films ever, I can’t imagine how hard you are to please with other films.
@@ryanbollinger1759 I agree not completely terrible, but a lot of missed opportunities and the social commentary had the subltey of a brick to the face.
@@gentelmanjunkie542 If you know anything about the history of Chicago urban development, and/or the long history of southern folklore in US black communities, the social commentary was thin. C'mon, not once did they even bring up the show 'Good Times', which had a setting inspired by Cabrini Green.
Social commentary can be done well if you "Show, don't tell." The problem is these people who try to infuse social commentary in their movies think the Audience isn't smart enough to pick up on the message so they'll just try to bash you over the head with the message to the detriment of the movie.
movie, streaming show, comics... it is like the word nuance is missing from their lexicon
This comments is very true
See Dr Who under Chibnal
Exactly
Social commentary nowadays isn’t done to have an actual message it’s mostly done just to get publicity, clicks, and money.
Absolutely agree with you this movie was just weird when it came to storytelling. Also the conversations, idk it felt like the skriptwriters had never seen a human interaction.
I'm watching it right now all the little subtle white man bad narratives are getting on my last nerve
@@anthonyjordanmoviesandmore2470 so I guess you never liked the original?
Lol what?
@@jamescolburne2004 I love the original the original everything was subtext this one is just straight-up racist
@@anthonyjordanmoviesandmore2470 racist 😩😂😂😂😂
I appreciate that Jeremy doesn’t drag these reviews out. Quick less than 10 minute usually around 7 minute reviews and gets it all in. 👍
The way he speaks is also pretty captivating and enthusiastic which is why I don't feel like it's dragged or too long
Nawww, the more the better
Yeah, I agree, although I wish he did more follow up Spoiler Talks, even when the movie doesn’t interest me I still love his spoiler talk videos
It's particularly funny cause his reviews have been slowly getting longer over the years but he still caps out around like 8min pretty consistently. He definitely does this for the passion of it all.
@@SHADOWKNUX1 yeah agree with you there. I would deff like to see more spoiler videos.
I miss Chris Stuckmann and Jeremy Jahns posting reviews at the exact same time, and me freaking out to watch which one's first
Chris has moved on hasn't he?
I always went for Jeremy's first, he's way more charismatic
@@dadocta5168 We should all chase our dreams
Chris Stuckmann is still making reviews, he only makes them occasionally, because he still working on a movie.
@@dadocta5168 Chris does reviews still but he does two in one video and only if it's something he really wants to talk about. Usually independent films.
Feels like the film is so desperate to make a clunky social message it forgot it was a horror movie
@@mablesfatalfable6021 Has she actually said she won't cast white males in lead roles?
@@spenser9908 Jordan Peele said that openly after the movie "Get Out"
@@mablesfatalfable6021 How does refusing to hire white people in lead roles negates their ability to care for social injustice?
@@jaboi7709 because its hypocritical and directly embodies the very prejudice he claims to despise?
Something is very wrong with yall
You can’t replace Clive Barker with Jordan Peele as producer. Clive wrote this story (The Forbidden) and without him it’s not hard for me to imagine that it never reaches its true flavor
One of the best things about the original really was the AMAZING Philip Glass score.
Which this one sadly lacks.
Among other things, it seems.
I wonder why people are raving about this film so much lmao. There's nothing more obnoxious in a film than an absolute lack of subtlety when it comes to delivering social commentary. The fact that it has such obvious social commentary is probably why all the pretentious critics are giving it such a good review. Nonetheless, thanks for sticking to your guns and being as open and honest with every review as always! This is why I always come to watch your reviews
" social commentary" that is all you need to get good reviews from main stream critics. Mostly social critic against white people or men, then you will get good reviews. Not all the time, but most
And it is lead writtem by jordan peele and hollywood has a hard on for him
Personally, I enjoyed the bit of meta-commentary to it, working from the artist/critic angle. For those not paying attention, there's a bit where the character of McCoy is trying to present his latest work, and the critic he's talking with just immediately rips into it, basically ignoring any appreciation of the work or effort to make the piece to just say how it's nothing new, and how previous works have done the same thing and done it better. But then you get a later scene where because now McCoy's work is garnering more attention, the critic goes out of her way to act like she didn't fundamentally shit on his work, which ties nicely into a later sentiment that was part of why Candyman existed in the first place. The expression of people wanting the works others make, but treating the people who made those works like dirt.
But maybe that's just me reading too much into it. Overall, I can see why people enjoyed the movie. It had a competent story, excellent visual direction, solid scoring, and was enjoyably paced, between the building dread of people taking the bait, and moments where the movie let itself breathe.
Anyone who publicly criticizes this movie will be labeled racist
Or maybe...just maybe they liked the movie and gave it a good review? It is that simple
@@joshjmc1787 not realyy whe they state the reason for said good review, and many cardboard cutouts of same opinions
Does anyone else actually watch the “better time if you’re drunk” movies while you are actually drunk? It’s a good time
I don't drink, so I wouldn't know.
@@tristanhartup4936 well then obviously this question isn’t directed at you. Please exit the comment thread
@@brianbrown6637 I felt like participating, sue me.
I smoke before watching and it’s a REALLY good time ;)🌴
@@spencergadoury pot melts your brain.
I honestly had the same exact thoughts after coming out of the theater, except I didn't like how it looked either.
The original Candyman felt grimey, dirty, and just overall real. I'm not sure if it's because of the newer cameras, color grading, lighting, or what, but even when there was a scene somewhere that's supposed to be run down it still felt too clean.
The movie has a very polished look and doesn't have the same, almost majestic tone as the original.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯% agree
Bruh I literally said the same thing word for word to my gf after we watched it
So true! I saw a making of documentary about the 1992 film and the director said that they added more trash to Cabrini! Can you believe that? The actual dirty, filthy run down projects at the time STILL didn’t have enough trash and needed more 😂😂. And in the original it’s that very trash that made me see the film as ‘beautiful.’ So much irony there.
I was too focused on everything else that I didn't even realize this about Candyman 2021. You're definitely right though, the original had so much going on in Cabrini Green that the building itself did all the talking.
well isnt that the point, gentrification. cabrini green isn't what it used to be.
Jeremy’s reviews have gotten better and better over the years. I usually skip reviews unless it’s an IMDB score, or a buddy’s. Thanks Jeremy.
The original Candyman is a true classic and Tony Todd is a horror legend
I feel like he should've gotten more starring roles after that. He had such a great presence. I saw him in a few other things, but they were small roles.
@@LadyTanyaNY I agree. He was great in Night of the Living Dead and the Hatchet series but we could always see more Tony Todd
This movie was good and got good overall reviews.
The best part of this movie was seeing Tony at the end
@@sly9263 I totally agree
The original's ost is God tier....that is all.
Especially the theme during the opening credits, very creepy.
Yeah, fr. It really helped cement Philip Glass as my favorite composer.
That organ is a thing of beauty
One of the greatest horror scores of all time.
I must just see if she wants✨🎇🎆🎄🎃🥉🥈
Candyman is a vengeful spirit that castrated a boy and tried to burn a baby alive. To try to turn him into the vigilante of the very community he terrorized 30 years ago is just so stupid!
Also a huge part that made the original Candyman movie so successful was the uniqueness of Daniel Robitaille. The OG Candyman was terrifying yet alluring, immensely cruel but capable of affection, decomposing and crawling with bees but with this elegant posture...
Now he's a bunch of nameless men plus freaking Sherman and dull as dishwater Anthony... unbelievable now they manged to f this up.
You missed the message. Candyman is as much a horror tale for whites as it is for blacks. Candyman is a tale of the atrocities committed to the black community but Candyman is also a reflection of its own community. The gang violence the high crime rates, etc. Candyman is the worst of both, he plays both parts.
@@FaffyWaffel No he didnt. Thats what it was turned into with this garbage sequel and why many hated it including me. Candyman was an urban legend set in that backdrop. The only thing that had to do with race was why he was killed. It's not even horror anymore.
Candyman the book and more so the first film was a look at societal issues of poverty and gentrification etc.. this is just a. Ham fisted dumb identity politics view…
@@randomfools808 Do you think gentrification isn't....a race thing? It was heavy on race in the first one.
Its revenge p o r n
some ppl into that kinda of thing
"Maybe this movie would BEE a better time if I was drunk"
Candyman is coming for you just for that joke alone, you don't even have to say his name. Lol!
The Candyman that we were expecting - "I am, the writing on the wall. The sweet smell of blood. Be my victim."
The Candyman that we got - "I hear you're looking for Candyman bitch. Well you found him."
Also: Social commentary hammer to the viewer’s head.
😂😂😂 That's a good one!
@@makasete30 *Philip Glass Music intensifies*
Sad thing is I"m sure those that brought up the idea of making a new film wanted that, only to get drowned out by execs and up and comers thinking their Gen Z TikTok lingo will make a better film.
@@aaadesktop Executive’s really, really, REALLY need to stay out of creative people’s way.
Take risks, damnit.
I agree 100%. It just fell flat in both the horror aspect and social commentary. There’s a really great spot in review on Polygon that sums it all up perfectly
It was produced by Jordan Peele, if you've seen any of his other work you know hes not known for his subtlety
The guy's a comedian, they're never subtle.
And written. He is the lead writer of this movie
And thats why it just doesn't work for the candyman character. He should stick to his own stuck like Get out or US. Those are great, but this movie just blew hard.
@@thiccnicc7530 Get out was great US was a letdown.
Hit the nail on the head. Despite the great acting and satisfying visuals the movie was too concerned with spoon feeding the audience its message. I found the original much more compelling, this one paled in comparison. When a message is delivered subtly and gradually it creates a much deeper comprehension and is actually more effective. I did like the little nods to horror tropes though, for instance when the main female character says "nope" to going down a dark staircase into an unknown underground location. Overall it was a fun watch but it didn't stay with me, contrary to the original.
Yeah, unfortunately it’s a bad movie. I couldn’t enjoy it all. Time to but and rewatch the original.
This is the common denominator amongst most bad movies nowadays.
I dint care for us or get out either personally
Facts! I was disappointed
I actually enjoyed this 2021 version. It's for sure a film that will stay with me, as I have been thinking on it since I left the theater. It's one of those movies where you just have to know certain things in order to get it.
Yeah Jordan Peele being involved in things is a big warning sign to me now. He did the exact thing with Twilight Zone drilling into your head its social commentary. He's not into subtly much.
At least he's not super obnoxious about it, like other directors try to be. He still makes it easier to watch by all audiences. Not necessarily annoyingly finger waggy.🤷🏽♀️
Wait you're mad that the Twilight Zone has obvious social commentary? Have you ever seen an episode of classic Twilight Zone? The episode about beauty being in the eye of the beholder is not subtle in the slightest about what the message is
@@Advent3546 Yeah lol that confused me about his post too.😅 Episodes of the Twilight Zone were very much social commentary, if not philosophical. I guess it's harder for people to recognize now b/c it's was commenting on current cultural mindsets of it's own time. So there's some cognative dissonance there.
The og twilight zone had social commentary on it, U just saw it different because they were a certain type of actors in the og.
And ‘Us’ was garbage. Dude was a one trick pony with ‘Get Out’.
Saw the original as a kid and haven't watched it since. Still one of the most haunting movie I've ever seen, right next to the original Jacob's Ladder
another “good time if you’re drunk”, you never fail to disappoint Jeremy
@@joshevans3421 damn, he’s clever with that
Wtf do u want a higher score or a lower score
@@wondermcthunder8835 i just find it funny he’s given the same score to a movie this year for the 20th time or so and what’s more ironic is I believe he was hyped for most of these last year (correct me if im wrong on that tho)
@@Distnightly maybe it's because those movies... weren't good. Ever thought about that?
@King Slayer yeah thats a shame, my dad even predicted that
The ending was so heavy handed with the social commentary that I found what was meant to be a sad scene comical. Compare it to the brilliance of the night of the living dead ending. Both convey a simular message, but one does it well.
nah. better yet, contrast it w/ the beginning of the film. which side of the mirror are you on at the beginning? at the end?
@@ahbbuddha how does that go against the messaging being heavy handed?
It made me really sad personally, especially the concept of the main character slowly starting to embody the wounds of the previous candy men and the art towards the end that depicted George Stinney (a child that was put to death through the electric chair) and other people of color dying in horrible ways. It wasn’t perfect but I don’t know how you could find it comical in any way.
@@skyandrews2613 easily because it was too heavy handed. Hum getting the wounds was also comical, no one said a thing about him looking like freddy Krueger by the end of the film. Pure comedy right there.
Ridge is so good that Jeremy doesn't even uses it.
Lmao
Wonder if Jeremy uses the Star Wars edition of Dr Squatch soap since it is promoted before his video...lol
Great review! Agree with you a lot on this one👍🏻
Big fan 🖤
You guys > IGN reviews
Your doing great things on your channel too Chris. Love your intros. Lol
eyyy i b watching the both of yall! yall be having great movie reviews!
To be honest I didn't like jermerys or you're review of this movie...
I feel like they tried to do too much with this movie. It had some great ideas, but then it wasted time on parts that shouldn't have survived the first edit when that time should've been devoted to the core story more. The girlfriend's dad, the high school girls, all that was needless. And changing Candyman's motivation made no sense also.
Candyman is one of my favorite movies ever, Tony Todd as Candyman is the most perfect casting ever.
Take a shot everytime Jeremy says "Candyman".
You're gonna die halfway through the video 😂
Lol
yEaH, nOw ItS a PaRtY...🥴
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💯
It would kill you faster than the Candyman would
The 1992 Candyman is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. One of my favorite MOVIES of all time, period. I can't describe what I felt when I saw that movie for the first time. The atmosphere, the haunting and unsettling story, the beautiful score, the deeper social and political themes that resonated through it all. I was so excited for the 2021 reboot, and the disappointment I felt walking out of that theater was almost heartbreaking. There was SO much wasted potential, and I think that's what hurts the most.
Seems like 1 of those movies that the director REALLY wanted to make a movie on social issues but the studio gave her a psychological horror and she went "I'm going to wedge as much of the movie i want to make as possible while trying to fit this established IP around it"
Its possible the studio producers wanted that to. Not that this director is innocent of what you said, but ppl gotta remember its not always just the directors.
It's indeed a psychological trauma filled horror. All of that is real and true.
Social commentary itself has become our modern day horror.
this should be top comment
+1
Indeed.
That's exactly how I felt about the ending. Just felt thrown together last minute. And yes you're right about that voice missing.
Jeremy said his name multiple times in a row :(
I'll miss his reviews.
Lol
i’ve learned so much about film from this guy, i subbed all the way back in 6th grade and now i’m a freshman in college, keep doing you jeremy
That's awesome
Ayy baller!
I have no idea what freshman means, but I assume it means first year? Good luck, my man! 😋
The original movie was pretty subtle in the racial undertones of the movie.
Subtleness is something missing from a lot of modern media.
Please talk to Black men about the subtlety of police violence and prejudice. This movie wasn’t meant to make White people feel good about our reality, please get over yourself babe.
@@MsRESPECT90 boy get the f out of here with that crap. There are better ways to express a message without beating people over the head with it.
@@MsRESPECT90 as much if a myth as Candyman....
@@MsRESPECT90 oh my god. F off. I watched it with the “perspective” of a black woman. Movie was still crap.
The original movie was in the 1990's. We're in 2021. Candyman has a history of how he became candyman. The story is ever evolving because history in some form recreates itself. It's a sadness that a films lack of subtleness of the various forms of horror and how people experience horror has caused so much anxiety within these comments. You missed the entire movie because of your own subconscious guilt, and that is a bummer.
You can’t recreate the gritty theme that the original Candyman had.. there’s very few horror films that can do that to begin with much less recreate it.
I guess you can if you are a talented director with a good script. Difficult but not impossible.
Agreed... plus Tony Todd is a great actor...they used his name to sell this movie...they knew what they were doing 😂😂😂😆😆😆
And plus you need that old gritty Cabrini to capture that true candyman look and feel
@@mikemadsen7926 truth
@@makasete30 I mean so far all we’ve gotten is good remakes when it comes to horror films.. in none of those were they able to capture that gritty theme I’m talking about.
Rumour has it that if you say “institutional racism” into a mirror five times, a Hollywood exec appears and gives you 20 million dollars to appropriate a well-loved movie franchise
Hope that exec isn't Harvey
This comment deserves more likes
The original Candyman was excellent! It left me afraid to say his name five times. And Tony Todd is great in everything he does. That voice is epic! He also was great in Star Trek, I wish he was in more episodes!
He was in the xfiles episode "sleepless".
Just recently watched the og Candyman and was pleasantly surprised! Definitely liked the ending with the Virginia Madsen in makeup.
Even now as a grown ass man, I’m still not brave enough to say “Candyman” in my mirror 5 times! 😂💀
Lmao you’re not lying 😅😂
right! play with something that's safe.
Forced social commentary in movies is the equivalent of approaching people in public trying to guilt them into signing some petition about saving the environment
I will never forget after watching the original film, going to the bathroom and looking in the mirror with no lights on and saying "Candy Man" and being terrified to say it 5 times...
I miss being young and gullible/imaginative...
I wonder If I had VHS with darkman and candy man on it, I seem to have them both on my mind when I try to think of the plots???
This review reminded me how good original was. Got to rewatch it.
Identity politics and social issues take precedence over just telling a good story too often these days. There’s no finesse. I was anticipating almost every flaw you pointed out and now I don’t feel compelled to see this until it’s streaming for free.
Don’t watch it then
@@justsoblessed I definitely don’t plan on it, at least until it’s free. Thanks for your concern, Incredible Dad/Mom!
“It’s not even a party, I’m just sad.”
Saaaaame
I use a mirrorless camera 💪🏾💪🏾😂
Bird man!!!!!
avian male!!!!
a wild Birdman appears!
Michael Keaton has entered the chat
Uh oh. I hear "Jeremy" in my head, and "this laugh".
Wholeheartedly agree. They missed the mark with recapturing what made the first movie great.
The scariest thing about this film is the trailer. I was in a cinema about a month ago and the trailer played. It looked like a typical horror flick until the end of the trailer. Once the trailer had finished, it repeated a second time. Usually, I would have thought this was a typical cinema mistake, but because of all trailers, it was of a horror film based on the premise of repetition, I was scared shitless.
I went to theatres to watch Old by myself (first “horror” in theatres alone, luckily wasn’t too scary) but when the Malignant trailer played.. I was superrr scared. Candy man trailer was good too
And repetition or history repeating itself is exactly what this film in a way showed. It's a stain that can not be washed out as one of the character's noted in this most recent film.
I get what you're saying about mystery, but everyone already knows that Candyman is real from the first movie. If they tried to keep it mystery I feel it would have felt like Manufactured Tension.
Maybe, and I haven't seen the new one so I don't know if it plays the same beat of implicating the MC in the murders, but because of that in the original it allows tension to remain even when you rewatch the film. Because you know she's innocent and yet it does reasonably look like she did it.
Question about the ending (Obvious Spoiler Warning):
When the wife is in the police SUV, and she says Candyman four times into the mirror, and the officer says it once, why does that trigger the killer? Two things: 1, I thought the same person had to say the name five times. How does the dude saying it once count? And 2, why does the Candyman not kill her? Is it just because of their relationship? I mean, does he still remember her and decide to just kill all the cops to protect her? Seems sketch to me. Looking for any thoughts. Thanks.
honestly, we all don’t know. i have so many questions as well!! they tweaked a lot in this movie and didn’t really follow the original movie. i didn’t really like this one.
I think it's because as long as his name is said 5 times TOTAL then it still summons him based on whoever started the summoning?
Honestly it just felt like an excuse to kill all the white cops to once again bash this social commentary over our heads
I did not get that Breana was his wife. Could be wrong. But she called him her partner at one point, so maybe she was just his woman. Back seat of police car scene Breana was traumatized obviously, and just witnessed her love shot first and no questions asked. A script of lies was her only options and in a state of still shock and madness she asked the cop to let her look in the mirror. He did. She began calling C man...and in the original Candy you really only had to say his name 3 times. When she got to the 4th call she saw her man walking. How can a so called dead man walk. She knew the answer. Anthony, although possessed by the ghosts of the other murdered Black men aka C-Man's, avenged his death and thus killed all those involved in his death. He did not kill Breana because there was no real reason as she never really said it 5 times. And C-Man has the power or choice to let you live or torment you mentally. Anthony basically saved her, and showed up before she could say it the 5th time. C Man is very aware and conscious, so yes he knew her. It made much sense to me.
Not to mention if that's the case wouldn't the girls in the bathroom auto trigger candyman since there were 5 of them so they said it in total 20ish times lol
When Chuck Norris says 'Candyman' 5x in a row,
No one appears
Chuck: - "Be my victim"
Chuck Norris will never die. I'd explain why but there's dozen's of memes that did that already lol.
Chuck Norris: "Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman".
Candyman: "Chuck! You son of bitch". 🤜🤛
This is disappointing as it's been promoted for ages 😟 I haven't seen the original though so I can at least watch that.
Watch the original!!
The original is a horror classic. One of my favorites
Ditto with the others. The original is great horror.
Only watch the original.
It was one of those films you watch as a kid that just fks you up for years to come 😂Tony Todd is brilliant.
The original is skin crawling, and I still have trouble watching it til this day. Sucks that this sequel is kinda just ass, because I was excited to see it.
What ruined the sequel was the blm agenda
@@jmsaucedo2003 Your profile explains a lot lol
@@jmsaucedo2003 Except for the fact that the topics the movie brings up such as the gentrification of neighborhoods is all completely true
@@jmsaucedo2003 what ruined the sequel was how it wasn’t scary and like the video says goes absolutely nonsense in the final act
@@keirstraub8352 that too
2:03 Genuinely surprised and happy to see this dude acting still. Haven't seen him since his misfits days.
He was in a show that was cancelled called Utopia (the British version, not the recent Amazon redo) and played a very small part as a teacher in The Kid who would be King
I was out at social commentary knew they were gonna do it way to much 😂
apparently there is a lot in it
They go on a cop killing spree
So basically most good horror movies …
@@RTOneStopMediaShop like what
@@hulkfan97 Them, or Candyman?
This literally summed up how I felt about the film in every way
Social commentary not being as subtle is just the norm for current year Hollywood.
It’s the norm for current life. The problem with previous generations was inaction. Some issues need to be drilled into peoples brains.
They probably could've had a lot of fun with the bathroom scene but they kept this R rated movie pretty PG-13.
I had to look up the rating after that scene.
@@richlester7451 I mean there was a steady flow of blood, albeit CGI blood. But I think it was almost all off screen. If they had done something like what they did with Let the right one in and annihilated the girls in the same fashion, excellent.
That was also off camera but I feel like it just revealed more while leaving lots to the imagination.
@@MrBrokehisbollo this is 2021 kids born in 1999 and after have no imagination...🤔
The bathroom scene was pretty traumatizing. People don't think about the effects this possibly could have had on the two girls who actually survived. I think they had a lot of fun with the bathroom scene.
I’ll watch it eventually, but you pretty much confirmed everything I feared about this movie. Social commentary is fine when the movie trusts the audience (As you said, the original Candyman), but these modern woke movies don’t even play things as an allegory. They hammer you, aggressively, over the head with their political message, and it comes off as angry and infantile. It does more damage to your cause when you sell it at the expense of good storytelling.
Sad to hear. Was looking forward to this release. Kinda hard to replace Tony Todd, though, so not surprised.
Uhm Tony Todd wasn’t replaced… he still played Candyman lol
Tony Todd came back for the role. I think what Jeremy was meaning was that he didn't get to bring back that gravitas and mesmerism that the character had in the original.
@@alextownley9388 for like 5 seconds
Why do you mean if is sad to hear? Why don't you watch it yourself? It might be a very good film, at least for you.
It really wasn’t bad, at least to me I thought it was pretty enjoyable. Just watch for yourself!
I love how he said candyman five times in under two minutes. Someone make sure this man is okay. 😂
I can't wait for all those who rewatch the original to rediscover all the social commentary that is VERY NOT-SUBTLE AND CLEARLY DEPICTED.
Exactly! But they’ll probably still miss it since they aren’t living through the context of the original films commentary so it’ll go over their heads again and assume that’s what subtly is.
The real problem is the original is from a white male perspective where the savior is basically Helen. This new 2021 version appears to be from a Black perspective. The social commentary is easier to consume when momma or daddy is feeding you. But when the babysitter tries to feed you the same food you can act up because as a child you still believe you run and control the babysitter.
@@nadia4999 You're right, also the black voices in the original were silenced, as it had a lot of scenes cut, even as small as interracial kissing because it made white people uncomfortable. Tony Todd himself speaking of his displeasure with that it in interviews. While the new film with voices of color mentioning social issues makes white middle and upper middle class people uncomfortable and angry. Example, all the comments here alone complaining about the lack of subtlety from the new film unlike the originals "subtlety", aka the originals silencing of black creators voices.
@@TheBatCaveCult Great point. The request for a so called horror film to showcase subtlety is beyond my comprehension. There's so much complaining that it's hilarious.
Candyman should have been named social justice man because that’s the overall theme of this movie
I miss movies with commentary and hidden meaning that we're actually good, all these new shows and movies just feel the same and bland
@@ajmorales5748 The original one is still the best
I would watch a movie about a superhero named Social Justice Man.
@@TenTonNuke sounds like a south park superhero or one that'd be made fun of in the boys
not everything is social justice
fiction is just fiction
both people who think everything is social justice and social justice warriors both complain about fiction.
social commentary in movies is like people recording a concert with their own terrible smarphone: almost no one knows how to do it, no one asks for it, the result is gonna be terrible and way more people than necessary will do it anyway.
Social commentary has always been in great films. The ONLY difference is whether its woven in nicely or sticking out in a super obvious way. In this case it stuck out, and that is always the worse of any set of films
@@RobotHau5 IMO... this movie wasn't "social commentary,"... it felt like straight up propaganda, and YES there is a BIG difference.
Jeremy Jahns gets the issue with how films handle socal commentary nice. Every great film has had something to say but they had not forgot to make the movie good first
I had a dream about Candyman (The original...Tony Todd) Years ago. He was in my hallway and we had a fight. (I kicked his arse) But all I could hear was his voice.
Jeeze Louise!! All these years later and I still remember that dream.
But how did you win?
Did you woke Up with a morning Wood?
@@sebswede9005 A rude question from an obvious rude person.
Do you think you're funny?...Trust me, buddy, you're not.
@@jloh3256 How did I win? Good question.
In the dream, he (Candyman) was walking towards my baby son's room. I just thought in my dream head. "I don't fucking think so" I ran at him and used his hook against him. All I could hear was "Be my victim" while I was kicking his arse.
Absolutely true. No kidding. It's a dream I remember to this very day.
And yet another great story is needlessly ruined by shoehorned social commentary at the expense of storytelling. What a time to be alive🙄
When people use social justice in a negative connotation it's such a self report. 😅 this isn't 2015 anymore
It's not that there is social commentary in the film it's that there is a lack of subtext.
I mean social commentary should be in a candyman movie, given how much of the original movie was social commentary.
Wow I'm surprised not to many people dug this movie, but they loved Us and Get Out. It just doesn't make sense to me. They made this a sequel and a prequel all in one. The movie connects perfectly with the first, but has it's own personality. Like you could do a sequel that has nothing to do the first movie and they will hate it. Then you do a sequel that somewhat connects to the first and they still hate it. I think everyone's opinions suck at this point and everyone has a different opinion just for the sake of having one. Perfect gore, perfect subtlety, perfect happy/not so happy ending.
The wokeness is overstated. 8 minute lecture at the beginning and not much else. The movie feels incredibly short. As soon as it gets going, it’s already over. Jeremy is right, the killings are redundant. There is no mystery between if it’s him or if it’s really candyman. They should have played on this element a little more.
I really am disappointed with how few lines Tony Todd actually spoke in this film. I really wish that he spoke more throughout the film, even in the most irrelevant ways. For example, when Anthony sees Candyman in the elevator, at least let Candyman say something like “I have come for you. Be my victim”. One of the primary reasons I wanted to see the new Candyman movie was to hear Tony Todd’s voice again, and I know I am not the only one who wanted to see the movie for the same reason
You sure aren't. He's the ONLY reason I went to see the movie. I was looking foe him throughout the entire run time. Talk about disappointment when he only showed up in the last minute of the movie
Why'd they forget the ending of the first movie with Helen. She became a legend herself and this movie didn't even acknowledge that
Did you not see the whole marionette part where they basically tell you what happened in the first movie?????
Was way too heavy-handed with the messages. Only took like 30mins for me and my buddy to realize that only white people were being targeted, which really killed the suspense during the killing scenes. You immediately knew who was gonna live and who was gonna die just by looking at them lol. Was borderline comedic. Should have been called “white people bad” with how uninspired their approach to the messaging of the movie was. This was someone getting angst out more than it was a meaningful message and story. I’m starting to think the people trying to “fight racism” today are actually the biggest racists.
Absolutely.
Well i was thinking that too but if you remember, the kid in the opening scene discovered his sisters dead in the bathroom. Killed by candyman, so they are still keeping the fact he goes after anyone.
ehhh ur missing it bro, and 30 minutes in u can’t even see what it wants to say..
It’s ironic how they’re goal to fight bigotry will invariably end up creating the most bigotry and antagonism. Why are there so many brain dead on this planet? I’ll never know.
@@spajas8092 their
Damn, Jeremy hair grows up so fast.🤣
Right!? I want hair genes like him.
It's like the hair gods has themselves blessed him
Where did the time go? I remember when the hair was small and fragile. Now the hair has a job of its own and a family to look after
The messages in this movie were so heavy handed I felt like the hulk was throwing them at me
I watched the 1992 Candyman last weekend and it totally still holds up. I love that movie. My bf had never seen it and what he really loved is that it was brutal and gruesome and terrifying without it showing you everything. It doesn't just give it to you, the movie lets you figure some stuff out on your own a little. I'm going to see the new one tomorrow night and after watching this review I'm excited to see if I share the same view as Mr. Jahns. To be fair though, I do plan on being drunk.
“I haven’t used that since the Obama years”
*Tosses ebt card*
Thanks for pointing out the heavy-handed social commentary. I really wanted to like this film but compared to they original there was no nuance and I left the cinema thinking, "So...cops are evil, I guess. That hasn't been done before. Yay."
It's not just the cops, it's white people they are portraying as evil.
All the kills by Candyman are against white people.
Film is racist as Hell.
Jordan Peele has a sledgehammer and he can't stop beating people over the head with it.
Good cause y'all love to ignore and sweep things under the rug when presented to you. Sorry not sorry.
@@jesterparty6947 The only thing I'm sweeping under the rug is this garbage ass movie.
@@greyinvader aww sorry it's not center whiteness anymore I feel your pain/s
@@jesterparty6947 Would you like some salt with that watermelon?
@@greyinvader Nah but it looks you have enough with that mayonnaise. No lips.
Spoilers and my general thoughts .
The original was a better film , yet still flawed the 1992 version felt as if Tony Todd's candyman had a better motivation to make an example out of Helens life's because she never believed in him , in the 1992 version it isn't addressed in the film but the reason why candyman becomes attached to Helen is because she resembles what his girlfriend looked like back in the day , this 2021 adaptation couldn't of opened any better with the first 10 minutes hidden subtext opposition with a character and the ambient reverse tracking shot going through the city it gives you the impression that the film will be great .. this film forgot that not only is candyman paranormal he's also psychological this whole thing with the new candyman sherman missed the mark completely , keep the opening exactly the same but when laundromat man tells the story of cabrini green as a kid he was petrified of the candyman and all the violence that plauged his area turns out that sherman had a mental condition from the perspective of laundromat kid he thinks its the real candyman at the same time we see the cops running to the kids screams we see shermans guardians/parents also trying to look for him , but it's too late shermon is shot in cold blood , and ever since then laundromat guy feels guilt and responsible for shermans death , we don't know whether or not the police was looking for Anthony since he was their during all the murders the police just randomly show up at the end , didn't know how to feel when the film perpetuated that their are multiple candyman when in my eyes their is only one candyman and that's the 1992 excellent performance from Tony Todd I wasn't happy to see that he was utilised in the film better , the laundromat guys motives were so out of blue when come to the last 15- 20 minutes of the film it didn't feel fleshed out especially with what he decides to do with Anthony it's too heavy handed with its social commentary that it doesn't have enough thought behind its message to pay off , the cops were only corrupt to serve purpose to the plot , yeah they can be corrupt , I'm not beyond the fact that some people are assholes but for me to be on board with that the audience needs to spend time with these characters to learn the error of their ways , im hearing that their is a possible 40 minutes that was cut from the film , who knows maybe additional makes the entire story feel more cohesive
The movie got overall good reviews and when she told the cop to see herself in the mirror my theater went crazy.
I agree with a lot of what your saying, it definitely wasn’t subtle and the ending really did sort of rush to the end, but honestly I REALLY enjoyed this movie. His descent into the role of Candyman, the slow corruption of his reputation and body. I don’t know for me it really was a lot of creepy fun, but I agree with you about it being blunt with its message and the pacing.
Exactly! I like your take on it. But some messages have to be blunt, because trauma is real.
@@nadia4999 that’s fair. Again some short comings aside, I still really really liked this movie.
@@jonstakenover Me too. Of course there will be shortcomings, because people judge and we want everything to dazzle us. But the film in my eyes did what it was suppose to do in telling a story of how something came to be, and the effects and consequences that people experience.
Candyman 2 handled the themes and ideas as well as the Candyman himself MUCH BETTER than the new film did. That is an underrated sequel to a classic.
Plus Candyman 2 was actually good due to Clive Barker's involvement, which is sadly lacking in the third film and this one. He made the original and 2 both work. Also, the music by Phillip Glass was just as good as the first. The location being moved to New Orleans made for some great set-pieces and it further explored the anti-racism messages of the first film. Plus, it further replicated the atmosphere of the original short by Clive Barker.
Also, the acting was pretty damn good too, from Tony Todd to others including Kelly Rowan, Bill Nunn, and Veronica Cartwright.
The first is still great and the third film sucks too, like the new one.
Let us the audience connect the social commentary by ourselves. It's more impactful
The Sixth Sense is a perfect example.
Leftists be leftists.
@@garyjohnston4361 - For being artsy people, leftists sure do suck at making social commentary in art. Well, they suck at a lot of things. Basic economics, etc...
Thank you. You are an artist of words my friend. You just summed up my thoughts on the movie exactly but are articulate enough to voice them!
The white shaming killed it for me. I'm here to watch a movie not get guilted for my skin color.